(j3.2006) badly worded semantics for the IMPORT statement

[Van Snyder]

Robert Corbett wrote:
> Van Snyder wrote:
>
>   
>> Robert Corbett wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I don't think J3 intended for it to be standard conforming.  From an
>>> implementor's POV, I see no reason for the restriction.  Fortran 90
>>> and later versions of Fortran require two or more compilation passes,
>>> which makes the restriction unnecessary.  The restriction might be
>>> there to enforce someone's idea of good style; otherwise, I see no
>>> point to it.
>>>       
>> Isn't this controversy the definition of "an interp is needed?"
>>     
>
> I don't see that there is a controversy.  Unless I misinterpreted
> Bill's initial response, I agree with Bill as to what the language
> in the standard regarding the IMPORT statement was intended to say.
> I don't think it says what was intended, which is why I asserted
> that it is "badly worded."  I assume it comes as no surprise to
> anyone on the committee that the Fortran standard contains some
> badly worded sections and some pointless restrictions.
>   
The part about "I don't think it says what was intended" is generally 
regarded as a good reason for an interp request.
Words do not fly magically into corrigenda.  They only get there via the 
interp process.  If the standard needs clarification, the only way to do 
that officially is via the interp process.  If an interp is requested, 
the question will be pondered in depth and officially.  If no interp is 
requested, the situation will almost surely stand as it is today, with a 
tiny possibility of being repaired in a future standard just because 
somebody reads it again and finds it unclear again.  Or maybe not.